Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2001 - 2010 of 50036 for our.

[PDF] Jane Peckham v. Kristine Krenke
. The scope of our review on certiorari is identical to that of the trial court. We decide the merits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13280 - 2017-09-21

State v. Michael A. Sveum
to 951 does not preclude our use of the definition of a crime set out in Wis. Stat. § 939.12, because Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3539 - 2005-03-31

WI App 34 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2011AP643 Complete Title o...
that we review de novo. “When interpreting a statute, our purpose is to discern legislative intent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78515 - 2012-03-27

[PDF] WI APP 189
court’s discretionary call, we are constrained to affirm the trial court’s ruling. Our reluctance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26321 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Michael A. Sveum
falling outside of chs. 939 to 951 does not preclude our use of the definition of a crime set out in WIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3539 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] WI APP 34
that we review de novo. “When interpreting a statute, our purpose is to discern legislative intent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78515 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Frontsheet
The language of Wis. Stat. § 343.305(10) and our recent interpretation of that language in Vill. of Elm Grove
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106063 - 2017-09-21

2009 WI App 123
law. With respect to the notion of peculiarity, DSA relies on our supreme court’s statement in Kocken
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36654 - 2009-08-25

[PDF] WI APP 90
805.17(2). Our review of legal issues is de novo. Monicken v. Monicken, 226 Wis. 2d 119, 125, 593 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36377 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
, 2018 WI App 5, ¶14, 379 Wis. 2d 664, 907 N.W.2d 463 (2017) (citations omitted). Our supreme court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=403004 - 2021-07-30